Comments on: Design in Canonical http://doctormo.org/2010/05/11/design-in-canonical/ Just this guy, you know. Sun, 29 Jan 2012 01:21:30 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: doctormo http://doctormo.org/2010/05/11/design-in-canonical/comment-page-1/#comment-5101 doctormo Wed, 12 May 2010 13:15:13 +0000 http://doctormo.org/?p=2278#comment-5101 Jackie: Citation Needed, can you link to this? Jackie: Citation Needed, can you link to this?

]]> By: Jackie http://doctormo.org/2010/05/11/design-in-canonical/comment-page-1/#comment-5093 Jackie Wed, 12 May 2010 12:37:07 +0000 http://doctormo.org/?p=2278#comment-5093 I think it would help to look at the history mpt had with the Mozilla community. The way he started to throw all his toys out the pushchair when no one else wanted his One True Vision has a certain resonance with the current situation of top-down "you'll-like-it-because-we-said-so". Although, in truth, this approach has been building over time. I think it would help to look at the history mpt had with the Mozilla community. The way he started to throw all his toys out the pushchair when no one else wanted his One True Vision has a certain resonance with the current situation of top-down “you’ll-like-it-because-we-said-so”.

Although, in truth, this approach has been building over time.

]]> By: Donny http://doctormo.org/2010/05/11/design-in-canonical/comment-page-1/#comment-4996 Donny Tue, 11 May 2010 09:56:45 +0000 http://doctormo.org/?p=2278#comment-4996 Definitely agreed, the changes themselves were not that huge, frankly, but the lack of transparency did leave a really bad taste in the community's mouth. The blog is a nice step to fixing things. Definitely agreed, the changes themselves were not that huge, frankly, but the lack of transparency did leave a really bad taste in the community’s mouth. The blog is a nice step to fixing things.

]]> By: Azzeddine http://doctormo.org/2010/05/11/design-in-canonical/comment-page-1/#comment-4989 Azzeddine Tue, 11 May 2010 08:57:57 +0000 http://doctormo.org/?p=2278#comment-4989 Interesting post. You probably mean : http://design.canonical.com/ :) Interesting post.
You probably mean : http://design.canonical.com/ :)

]]> By: Fred http://doctormo.org/2010/05/11/design-in-canonical/comment-page-1/#comment-4986 Fred Tue, 11 May 2010 08:29:45 +0000 http://doctormo.org/?p=2278#comment-4986 I have tried the design URL, but it gives a 404 to me. Apart from that, it does seem Ubuntu shows signs of less openness from time to time. Last minute design, Unity came as a surprise (to me). I haven't seen anyone blogging about it. H.264 codec support. Mono. All sort of controversial things. As I see it, Canonical is willing to make some sacrifices in order to solve bug no. 1. Understandable, but it could be more (and earlier) open about it. I have tried the design URL, but it gives a 404 to me. Apart from that, it does seem Ubuntu shows signs of less openness from time to time. Last minute design, Unity came as a surprise (to me). I haven’t seen anyone blogging about it. H.264 codec support. Mono. All sort of controversial things. As I see it, Canonical is willing to make some sacrifices in order to solve bug no. 1. Understandable, but it could be more (and earlier) open about it.

]]> By: Luis Arias http://doctormo.org/2010/05/11/design-in-canonical/comment-page-1/#comment-4985 Luis Arias Tue, 11 May 2010 08:29:15 +0000 http://doctormo.org/?p=2278#comment-4985 I think its http://design.canonical.com. Looks awesome ! I think its http://design.canonical.com. Looks awesome !

]]> By: Jason http://doctormo.org/2010/05/11/design-in-canonical/comment-page-1/#comment-4983 Jason Tue, 11 May 2010 08:08:50 +0000 http://doctormo.org/?p=2278#comment-4983 Oops! Google Chrome could not connect to design.ubuntu.com Oops! Google Chrome could not connect to design.ubuntu.com

]]>